"Allegorical" and "Spiritual" Hermeneutics

This begs the question. You seem to be saying that Peter was crucified for saying what he did about the day and the 1000 years.

Question: Was Peter talking about a literal 1000 years versus a literal one day? Of course he was, otherwise the whole logical progression is suspect. And just because to God, 1000 years is as a day, does not mean that to us the same thing is true. Just because God, existing outside of the space-time continuum which He Himself created, can look at the whole scope of history at once, does not mean that we can do the same.

The sad thing is that you are interpreting allegorically and don't even know it. (This term does not mean that you interpret everything with an allegory, but that you do not interpret literally, but put a "spiritual" meaning above the literal meaning, according to Origen's method.)

You say you interpret Rev. 20 according to the context. Look again. In the context, the term "a thousand years" occurs no less than six times!! So you are ignoring the context completely when you say, "The day, the thousand years, will amount to 35-40 years." There is no basis whatsoever in the context to say that 1000 = 35-40.

Look again. I didn't say that. I quoted A. T. Robertson, the greatest Koine Greek scholar of the 20th century, as saying that. He was amillennial, rejecting both the postmil and premil positions. (In spite of that, I highly recommend that you find his Word Pictures in the New Testament and consult it often. It is available for free in e-sword and other software packages, being in the public domain.)

Again, Robertson's point: there are many different interpretations of the 1000 years, if you are amil or postmil. Why is that? Because every interpreter who interprets allegorically/spiritually interprets not from the text but from his own opinion. My point: if you interpret literally, there is only one possible meaning to the 1000 years: 1000 years!!

Again, you miss the point of my tongue-in-cheek comment. The average person on the street interprets everything literally. He would interpret Daniel's weeks as literal weeks, then try to figure out what in the world Daniel meant (not an easy task). He or she does not look for secondary, "spiritual" meanings on the job, at the store, in the doctor's office, from his family, etc. The very idea is ridiculous.

I've dealt with many dozens of new believers in Japan, America, and other countries. Not a single one ever said to me, "But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?" No, they interpret literally until some Internet dingaling tells them otherwise.

Patient--"Doc, tell it to me straight. Do I have cancer?"
Doctor--"Verily, there is an evil scourge within you. I say unto you, thou must repent and receive succor for thy temple, or face judgment upon thy temple."

 

The church (and individual believers) as a temple is in the church age. The 1000 years is a different dispensation, so there are different paradigms, the millennial temple being one of them.

 

You nailed it.

Ho, hum. I think I'll take an Internet nap while we wait for that answer, which never comes no matter how many times we ask it.

 

I threatened you? Really? Are you that void of understanding of hyperbole?

Now will you please actually interact with what I have written?

Again, here is just one question out of my points you have not answered: Was Peter talking about a literal 1000 years versus a literal one day? Or something else?

 

Excellent. Your mother taught you well.

Granted, Peter was making the point that God is not bound by time, and using antithesis to do that. But antithesis must be based on things that actually exist. So I disagree that Peter did not intend to be taken literally. The antithesis he gave could not exist if there were not a real, literal thing as 1000 years, and a real, literal thing called a day. Otherwise, the antithesis has no meaning.

If I were to say, "A ganglof is as a fiple to God," then that would be meaningless because those two items do not exist. I made them up.

 

Not a problem. We have had a lot of good discussion on this thread.

I weep for you metaphorically with , but not literally.